Energy and households : the acceptance of energy reduction options in relation to the performance and organisation of household activities = De acceptatie van energie reductieopties in relatie tot de uitvoering en organisatie van huishoudelijke activiteiten

Changes in demand-side consumption structures are expected to be supportive in achieving long-term national energy reduction targets. Energy requirement can be distinguished in direct energy consumption through energy carriers, such as electricity and gas, and in indirect energy consumption used for the production, the distribution and the trade of goods and services. Due to their direct and indirect energy consumption, households in theNetherlandsuse 40-60 percent of the total national energy requirement. For this thesis, research was conducted on the influence of household management on the willingness of family households to accept energy reduction options. The environmental burden of households arises at a functional level—the level at which activities are performed—whereas implementing more than one reduction option was expected to require organisational skills. This made it relevant to investigate both the performance and the organisation of functional household activities. The overall research question ' What is the influence of household management aspects on the acceptance and energy-saving potential of greenhouse gas reduction options?' was investigated by means of three surveys: a case study of Textile Care with energy reduction options to do with laundering; a general survey that included a range of 31 different reduction options for direct and indirect energy; and a follow-up survey a year later, in which respondents were asked which of the 31 options had been considered, tried and successfully implemented.Within the preceding NRP Lifestyle project (1990-1995) of the National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change I, the energy requirements of more than 350 household expenditure categories of products and services were calculated, using a hybrid method that combined process analysis and input-output analysis. For this thesis, the reduction option selection criteria were that the reduction potential per option was at least 0.5 GigaJoule per household per year and the total set of options should be divided over practices as well as investments and daily purchases. The theoretical saving potential of these options—including interaction effects—was 26 percent (of 240 GJ/hh.y). In practice, the domestic energy-saving potential will depend on the theoretical potential, on the acceptance of the options byhouseholds andon the magnitude of change at the functional level. The household activities and willingness to change were measured at a functional level, and these data were aggregated to investigate the acceptance of several changes.Six specific energy reduction options were investigated in the case study Textile Care, which was held among 104 family households: the use of a smaller washing machine; theuse of a gas-fired dryer; the use of more woollen clothing; the use of cotton and polyester (CO/PE) blends for bedding; washing at lower temperatures; and extra drying space. It was found that the households' unique situations resulted in a different mix of choices. The aggregated willingness variable was significantly and negatively related to 'combining laundering with other tasks'. This variable reflected an organisational aspect. On the basis of interrelated variables between practices and willingness to change, suggestions for energy-friendly laundering behaviour could be formulated. The energy-saving potential of the three most promising options (washing at lower temperatures, wearing clothes longer, line drying) represents 3-4 percent saving of the total (direct and indirect) energy needed for the laundering process.These findings encouraged a further and more refined investigation into the willingness to accept a range of reduction options and regarding the influence of household task organisation. This was done for 31 reduction options by way of a quantitative survey held among 376 households throughout theNetherlands. The reduction options addressed the activity categories House, Clothing, Food, Transport, Social Contacts, Leisure Time and Large Purchases. For two-thirds of the reduction options, the actual behaviour was related to willingness to change. Two types of relations were found: (1) When more willingness to change was related to less energy-friendly behaviour, it concerned popular, impersonal, small, practical and indoor practices: frequently repeated behaviours that required little effort to begin and needed relatively low sacrifices in the use phase; (2) when more willingness to change was related to more energy-friendly behaviour, it concerned personal preferences, which were outward-oriented options and less popular in general.According to the theory ofMoore(1995), a mainstream market (in theory 84 percent; referred to here as the mainstream group ) and an early market (in theory 16 percent; referred to here as the top group ) can be distinguished. Five different aspects of household organisation played a role in the aggregated measures for the energy friendliness of household behaviour (Use) and the Willingness to change to 31 options (Willingness). These were: (1) household members having a job, (2) use of commodities, (3) use of a household help, (4) frequency of confer about household tasks and (5) the number of times that household activities were combined (for Willingness a positive influence in the total sample and top group, but a negative influence in the mainstream group). More Knowledge about reduction options and a higher education had a positive influence on Use. Like the number of combined tasks, the number of children and the extent to which the environment plays a role in household tasks also had opposite influences on Willingness in the mainstream group (positive and negative, respectively) compared with the total sample (negative and positive, respectively). These three determinants are likely to be related to the thresholds of what mainstream households can deal with, and provide information about the different character of the mainstream and top group. No explanation was found for that, although in the mainstream group the number of children and the number of combined activities were positively related, and these variables had a positive and negative influence, respectively, on Willingness to change. The negative influence on Use (mainstream) and Willingness (top group) of frequency of confer—which was positively related to a more equal task division between partners and the respondent having a job—shows that routines in daily activity patterns are required for changes in behaviour to save energy. However, the results also show that these routines should not be perceived as being too complex.Factor analyses demonstrated that it was only possible to change combinations of two to three options. Explanations for the diverse outcome in which repeated options prevail were found in differences between the mainstream and the top group in the evaluation and organisation of household activities, and in the familiarity of small, effortless options: households chose options that they liked or in which they perceived advantages for their specific household situation. For indirect energy reduction options, the top and mainstream group differed in their estimation of what required more effort (top group: natural floor materials; mainstream: replacing cut flowers). For direct energy options, the top group was more in favour of use, image and design aspects than was the mainstream group.A year after the case study Textile Care, a follow-up survey was held among the general surveyhouseholds,and 62 percent returned the questionnaire: 62 per cent of the mainstream group and 64 per cent of the top group. The self-reported change in the follow-up survey was indeed influenced by the willingness to accept changes in the general survey. The difference between self-reported environmentally friendly behaviour (follow-up survey) and actual behaviour (general survey) was related to the 'Importance of household tasks results', and the difference between a self-reported change in behaviour (follow-up survey) and the willingness to accept changes (general survey) was related to 'Religion'. Thus, the perception that households have of the modified energy friendliness of their household behaviour is not entirely correct, even when their environmental awareness is high. The nine options most often applied (by at least 15% percent of the respondents) were repeated behaviours. These will save on average 6.9 percent per household. Among these were the giving of plants and gifts instead of cut flowers, driving less and using bicycles and mopeds more often, heating 1ºC lower and taking holidays closer to home. The most popular investments were water-saving shower heads, natural floor materials, a lighter car and energy efficient appliances (applied by at least 5% of the households).In short, it can be concluded that a relation exists between behaviour, intention and eventual change, but they have different patterns in the population—the relation varies for different reduction options, and for the mainstream and top group—and they have different sets of determinants. Among these are organisational household determinants and ones that point to the thresholds for the mainstream group compared with the top group.Feedback measures and information can certainly help to change self-perception and to increase knowledge. However, in particular in the mainstream group, adding in-depth coaching on changing routines and 'gearing' activity patterns and decreasing the complexity of household organisation or the perception of this complexity can probably result in a more lasting and a larger number of effects. On a practical level, having a choice, the perception of the problem, experiences with other changes and the wish for simple solutions should be considered. In particular for the mainstream group, in which time constraints and the desire for uncomplicated solutions prevail, a structure between households, local authorities and markets could make it easier for them to invest. Knowledge about reduction options would support energy-friendly household behaviour in general and in particular that of the top group. For population segmentation, a division between the top and the mainstream group is relevant as well as social status (education, having a job) and age.This measurement of aspects of household organisation has been a first attempt and can be extended to increase knowledge about the functioning of households. The findings in this study are likely to apply to other important household-related fields as well, such as healthy lifestyles, budgeting and combining work and child care.